I don't think border changes are a good measure of conflict. Iraq's border hasn't changed since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and it's had plenty of well known conflict since then.
> I guess lessons have expiration dates. We're going to have to relearn this one.
Which lesson are you talking about? The lessons we should have learned after the League of Nations collapsed?
Border changes aren't a measure of conflict, and preventing conflict is not the ultimate goal. Preventing total/nuclear war between major power is the goal. Border changes are (were) the way conflicts escalated into the great wars.
This why "aggression," the one international "law" that is taken seriously basically means border violations. The few non voluntary border changes since the late 40s (eg crimea, the west bank) are (despite generations) not recognized by the UN.
All the low power UN institutions cloud people's understanding of the core. The core is the UNSC, non aggression and a few other principle/institutions designed to prevent (basically) the US and Russia/USSR from destroying the world and the cold war cold.
It's not even designed to do last minute conflict resolution. It is designed to take the motive/gain out of war. The lesson is how major war has been avoided for 75 years largely because we can't go from pretence (China's terrible crimes in Xianjing) to war. Pretence will always exist. Major wars are preventable.
This is completely rewriting history. The purpose of the UN is quite literally:
> To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace
That is directly copy pasted from the UN founding charter, it goes on to talk about friendly relations, cooperation and harmony. You can read the rest here if you like:
The only lesson that the UN has learned from the LON, is that if you kick countries out for breaking the rules, then the whole thing falls apart. So in those situations, the UN takes the approach of doing nothing.
> It's not even designed to do last minute conflict resolution. It is designed to take the motive/gain out of war.
This is also rewriting history. The reason we haven't had a major conflict since WWII is because every country capable of creating one has nukes now, and nobody wants to get into a major conflict with a country that has nukes. The reason the US and USSR never got into a direct conflict during the cold war was because they both had nukes, not because the USSR was a member of the UN. Kennedy and Khrushchev resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis together (without the help of the UN incidentally) because neither of them wanted to be nuked, not because they were worried about the other one complaining to the UN.
Reading this thread has made me depressed. I guess lessons have expiration dates. We're going to have to relearn this one.